Related Stories

Comments (59)

freedom101

One assumes that The NZ Herald would take the comments down as soon as they became aware of them. Or maybe, even better, they would track down Arnold Breker and interview him. Then we could all learn about this warped and horrible man.

The overarching goal of the “open borders” movement is to flood millions of non-Whites into all traditionally White nations. Make no mistake—this is not mere coincidence. It is White genocide by design, worldwide in application.

The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Australia: White people founded and populated these nations. All of these nations operated under the implicit mandate, if not explicit by law, that they existed as White nations for the posterity of the White founding stock. All of these nations had overwhelmingly White populations for the preponderance of their national histories. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, all of these traditionally White nations face demographic upheavals through massive non-White immigration.

The White populations of these countries are slated to become minority populations in just a few generations

David Garrett

Well, at the risk of massive opprobrium – but then I am used to that….

One could never ever say “they deserved it”…but isn’t there more than a grain of truth in Mr Breker’s original comment? Am I the only one to detect a sense of entitlement on the part of the Israelis to do pretty much whatever they want because of the cruel catastrophe inflicted on the Jews in the middle of last century?

Kimbo

Kimbo

Then again, David Garrett stumbled charged willingly into this shit fight, and he is big and ugly enough to look after himself.

But a word of advise David- as with the actual Palestinian-Israeli conflict, when it comes to debating this topic on Kiwiblog, there are no good guys, precious-little truth but lots of heat, no common ground let alone a willingness to concede even the tiniest sliver of territory or acknowledge good will on the part of others, and enough finger-pointing and demonising of those with a different view point to make the Salem witch trials look like a knitting circle 😉

David Garrett

Wangas: Yes….but always forgetting the people who lived within those same borders before the creation of their nation state…the widespread view that the land now forming the state of Israel was hitherto a deserted wasteland is simply a myth…

David Garrett: he widespread view that the land now forming the state of Israel was hitherto a deserted wasteland is simply a myth

Not sure why that view is widespread in your head, but no educated person holds that view. Jews have lived in Israel since millennia. Not everyone was forcibly removed from their home country. You really think Israel had no Jews, and then they came back and took over?????

Kimbo

Jews have lived in Israel since millennia. Not everyone was forcibly removed from their home country. You really think Israel had no Jews, and then they came back and took over?????

Ho hum. Like unnecessary adverbs, a plethora of question marks almost always covers rhetorical bullshit. And yet another example of how both sides use history as a weapon in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Yes, there may have been a shear/Remnant community in Palestine from the time of Roman Diaspora onward, but it was so small as to be inconsequential for the argument of “unbroken occupation”. How do we know this?

1. The vast majority of Judaism, Ashkenazim and Sephardi regarded their nation as in exile for a second time. Hence the prayer of hope at Seder and Yom Kippur, “Next year in Jerusalem”. Indeed, many orthodox Jews consider Zionist occupancy of the land without being summoned there by Messiah as a sin.

2. The Zionist acceptance of the wording of the Balfour Declaration,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

…indicates that from a Jewish and/orZionist perspective, whatever small Jewish community that lived in Palestine at that stage (1917) did not, as per the Biblical tenets of Judaism, constitute a nation/goy at rest in the land promised to the Patriarchs. And as per the Balfour Declaration and subsequent international law, it did not negate the just aspirations of the resident Arab population for statehood.

Ed Snack

Stephieboy, you might like to ask how bloody the conquests of Timurlane were, and how many casualties were inflicted in the Mughal conquest of India. But I guess those are the wrong sort of darkies for you to care about ?

Harriet

“….the widespread view that the land now forming the state of Israel was hitherto a deserted wasteland is simply a myth…”

From around the 50’s onwards the Israelis basically invented drip-feeding irrigation and the like. Their legendary crop yields tell the story. They left some of it for the people of Gaza, and just like those of Israel’s other neighbour Palestine, they reaped what they sowed, very little.

thedavincimode

More a case of doing whatever was considered necessary to exist which has characterised the Israeli attitude from the outset and seen Israel through some very precarious times from the 40s through the 70s.

Liam H

I don’t think that’s the way the Israelis would characterise it. I think they would be more likely to say that Jewish self-determination is necessary to preserve the Jewish nation. To the extent that the Holocaust is called upon, it is usually given as an illustration that the Jewish people cannot depend on the kindness of strangers for protection. And when you look at, for example, the strange unwillingness of the Allies to bomb death camps in World War 2, it’s not an entirely unreasonable assumption.

Kimbo

That’s the same Nazi regime the likes of the Zionist terrorists the Lehi/Stern Gang sought to negotiate with during World War II to end the British control over Palestine.

Oh, yes, and while the war was still on and British troops were dying in their thousands ultimately to liberate those camps, that same organisation assassinated the British minister of state in the Middle East, Lord Moyne.

Also, despite rumours of the death camps, the Allies did not know for sure they existed until they stumbled across the likes of Belsen in 1945. And “the Allies/Gentiles let the Jews die” myth is just that – a Zionist propaganda myth, to buttress the supposed need for the existence of Israel.

Same with the “why didn’t nations accept Jewish refugees from Germany after Kristillnacht?” line. They did. Many thousands. It’s just that many of those countries, such as France, were over run by the Nazis in 1940 and so they were trapped within the borders of the Third Reich. Is part of the Shoah business narrative I mentioned above that apologists for Israel’s formation like to trundle out to silence criticism of her policies, and imply “she can do no wrong” and “everyone is against her”.

The anti-semitism that the modern Zionist movement was formed to counter was centred in Europe – the Russian pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair. Which makes the formation of the state of Israel a “Middle Eastern solution to a European problem”. And it has undoubtedly contributed to a new wave of anti-Semitism. So whether the formation of the the Jewish state has made Jews “safer” is moot.

Mind you, if I was Jewish and had skin in the game I might see it differently. But the same too if I was Palestinian…

mikenmild

You could start with The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis by W.D. Rubinstein, or Martin Gilbert’s Auschwitiz and the Allies.
But it might be simpler just to refer to Wikipedia for the basics of the Auschwitz bombing debate.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate

Kimbo

OK, gotcha – and yes I seem to recall the debate a few years ago. And thanks for correcting me on Belsen. Plucked the name out of the memory as a generic without checking the timetable of discovery and liberation on the Eastern and Western Fronts.

So even if/though the Allies knew about the death camps, they could do little to help the inhabitants as they were engaged in a life-and death struggle to defeat a powerful murderous regime. Indeed, as tragic as it was, to try divert resources to save the civilian victims of the Third Reich would actually dissipate from effort to defeat them.

Losses of Allied airmen in the 1942-45 bombing campaign were incredibly high. As heartless as it seems, I think it would have been immoral to divert precious military personnel and resources to bombing a non-military or industrial or (as in the case of Dresden) logistical target, with precious little chance of achieving anything other than…killing the people you are supposedly trying to save.

mikenmild

Sure, I was just mentioning this as an aside to your earlier comment. I don’t believe the Allies could have done much more to stop the extermination, and all the Allies themselves seemed to have been able to agree on was the the best help for the Jews was to defeat the Germans.

Liam H

“And why, even if they were, is it supposedly symptomatic of Allied anti-Semitism when Gypsies, homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses were also being put to death?”

I never said the Allies were anti-Semitic or even indifferent to the victims of anti-Semitism. But the fact is the Allies did know that the organised extermination of the Jews was going on – even if they may not have known precisely what the methods or the scale was. It may have been that bombing the camps (or the train tracks) was too technically difficult, involved additional risk to the prisoners or would have diverted too many resources away from the broader war effort.

From the standpoint of the victim, however, the lesson is this: We cannot depend on outsiders to save us. Therefore, we must never be in a position where we are at the mercy of others.

And whether you agree or disagree with the specific security proposals of the State of Israel, that underlying logic is not itself unreasonable.

Kimbo

I never said the Allies were anti-Semitic or even indifferent to the victims of anti-Semitism.

OK…

But the fact is the Allies did know that the organised extermination of the Jews was going on – even if they may not have known precisely what the methods or the scale was

…so you implied it

It may have been that bombing the camps (or the train tracks) was too technically difficult, involved additional risk to the prisoners or would have diverted too many resources away from the broader war effort.

And now you are dissembling.

From the standpoint of the victim, however, the lesson is this: We cannot depend on outsiders to save us. Therefore, we must never be in a position where we are at the mercy of others…

One question: Who defeated the Nazis and liberated the death camps? You know, while the Zionist terrorists were murdering the likes of Lord Moyne and trying to negotiate deals with Himmler?

And whether you agree or disagree with the specific security proposals of the State of Israel, that underlying logic is not itself unreasonable.

The logic? Yeah, sure. Good point.

But how about the practice? Another simple question – is Israel a country relatively free of

1. external enemies, and

2. internal terrorism

3. and located in a benign environment

…compared to all the other nations in the world?

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, I think the formation of the Jewish state was a mistake that has laid the foundation for decades, likely centuries of strife. It did little more than transfer the primary locus anti-Semitism from Europe (for the moment) to the Middle East.

Doesn’t change the fact you can’t undo history and we all have to live with the consequences of May 14 1948. Israel, like any nation – even those like New Zealand elements that constitute a “dubious history” – has the right to exist and defend herself. But unlike New Zealand, and the USA, and Canada, and the UK, Israel has to do so in a sea of hostile neighbours. And she sure has hell will likely have to keep doing that…forever. She will be a lightening rod for any and every perceived dissatisfaction in one of the most unstable regions in the world.

stephieboy

The Allies did know for sure Austchwitz existed and were especially interested in the synthetic fuel and rubber at the satellite camp of Monowitz And they flew reconnaissance flights over Birkneau photos of which revealed victims been lined up and sent to gas chambers. However the Allied consensus was that the news way to help the Jews was to end the war as quickly as possible .

The infamous voyage of the St Louis packed with Jewish refugees and denied a safe haven happened before the war.

Obviously the expereinces of the Shoah as well as Tsarist programs etc made it more imperative to find a more important permanent solution to Jews vunerabilities and threats that the oppotunities of State of Israel presented .

I agree though that Palestinain issue is inseperable from finding an enduring peace in the Middle East which I believe the Obama administationis attempting to seek .

Kimbo

Yes, and I seem to remember one was published in the book on the David Irving libel trial . However, as with much intell, it is only the benefit of hindsight what the photo (a very small, blown-up portion) reveals.

Bob R

@ Berend de Boer,

Do the aerial photographs suggest what was happening? It’s questionable that the Allies actually knew what was up.

In 1981, cryptanalyst Francis H. Hinsley published the second volume of his book British Intelligence in the Second World War. The British were intercepting German communications from around 1942 including “arrivals,” “departures,” recorded deaths at camps.

“The messages from Auschwitz, the largest camp, with 20,000 inmates,4 mention disease as the chief cause of death, but also include references to executions by hanging and shooting. The decoded messages contain no references to gassings.5”

“I found inconceivable inmate conditions. There was no running water, no working toilets, no way to bathe. The barracks lodging the prisoners were overfilled and there was a shortage of beds. There were masses of lice all over the floors, clothing and inmates’ bodies. The walls were black with fleas. The condition of the inmates was simply unbelievable, emaciated to their very bones, devoured by vermin, with dead bodies lying around between living inmates. Hundreds of dying inmates were taken away, but sometimes they lay around among the living for days.”

Liam H

I think you’re being too quick to infer things into my comment that I didn’t write (and certainly didn’t intend to imply). Are you disputing that the Allies knew that the mass murder of Jewish people was going on in Poland? Because the documentary evidence just doesn’t back up that denial.

There are all sorts of potential reasons for why nothing was done about it. It is in the nature of history that we probably will never know why, exactly. But the facts do invite the search for an explanation.

Eventually the death camps (by which I mean the extermination camps) were liberated … by the Soviet Union.

Does that excuse terrorism by the Stern Gang or other paramilitary groups? No. However, I certainly do not hold the Jewish survivors of Nazi Germany responsible for their crimes either.

Please do not make me out to be arguing anything other than I was arguing which is that, from the Israeli perspective, the shock of the Holocaust spurred on Zionism and those reasons are understandable.

I do not consider myself to be wise enough to make any sweeping declaration on the wisdom of the project as a whole/

Kimbo

Yes, and on reflection, even though you originally used the provocative phrase “the strange unwillingness of the Allies to bomb death camps in World War 2”, I see your point.

However, I think it unwittingly reflects much Zionist propaganda, and the surrounding paranoia that no doubt forms much of the experience of being an Israeli (e.g. the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin), or, more to the point how the “hard-word” is put on Jews to emigrate there. Yet the vast majority of Jews don’t think their preservation depends upon the state of Israel – hence they live in the likes of Brooklyn and Florida 😉

Also, as we are talking history – which is a favourite weapon of both Zionists and pro-Palestinians – the actions of the Zionist terrorists (who are not “bit players” – they are among the now-revered founders of Israel) are particularly egregious and hypocritical. “We can’t leave our defense in the hands of Gentiles”? They were negotiating with the Nazis! You can’t get much more of a threat to Jewish existence than that! That, and their cynical exploitation in of Jewish Holocaust survivors such as with the Exodus (basically the Marama Davidson PR stunt of its day).

Liam H

The word “strange” didn’t help.”Unexplained” may have been better.

In any event, we are more than 70 years from the close of the Second World War now. Soon it will beyond all living memory. Which may explain declining support for Zionism from Jewish people in America, for example.

Kimbo

I think the Allies were getting reports of mass murder, particularly from the Eastern Front, plus they were aware of incidents like the liquidation of the villages of Lidice in Czechoslovakia (in retaliation for the assassination of Reinherd Heydrich) and Oradour-sur-Glane in France.

They knew they were in a life-and-death struggle with an evil and very powerful Empire, that had at its disposal enormous resources, industrial capacity and determination. As with the Armenians at the hands of the Turks in the Great war, and also the millions of Poles who died before 1944, there was nothing that could be done about something happening on a concerted mass scale well within the enemy’s borders…other than to first defeat them at the fringes. That occurred at Stalingrad and El Alamein by late 1942. Up until then the verdict was still very much in the balance, indeed for the first two years, maybe even three the odds favoured the Nazis.

Even after late 1942, and despite the concerted efforts of the three major Allies, it still took another two and a half years of bloody and awful warfare, costing millions of lives, both combatants and civilians (through bombing and starvation) to win the war.

The Nazis stand solely responsible for the Final Solution. It is Zionist propaganda and paranoia to state or imply the Allies could have done more. The people of Occupied Europe don’t, in the main, think that way. So why Zionists? One reason – propaganda.

Before you can save your drowning neighbour you first have to make sure you don’t also drown trying to save him.

Liam H

But this is my point: whether they could or could not have done anything about it, the lesson taken by many was that the Jewish people should never be in a position where they were dependent on the protection of outsiders because that help did not come.

That was a strong force in galvanizing Zionism. I think reasonable people can differ on how appropriate that was as a response.

stephieboy

“It was an evil so monstrous that it defied belief”

Bletchley Park codebreakers got wind of the murder of Jews early on in occupied Poland and Russia .They were able to decipher messages from SS commanders of the Order Police ( auxiliaries drawn from those deemed medically unfit for military service – e.g retirees ) who augmented the work of the Einsatzgruppen .

Shocking as it was there were problems ,

1 . Would anyone believe it ? and ,

2 . The need not compromise Enigma by arousing Nazi suspicions .

3. Priority was given to the existing war effort and especially aiding Russia as the best way to help Jews .

However, Churchill believed in the messages and did go on and make a speech in Parliament August 1941 , “scores of thousands of executions in cold blood”. He added: “We are in the presence of a crime without a name.” Little further was said by Churchill after that

I understand that the Western Allies didn’t have the bombers with the range to reach Auschwitz and Stalin ( suspicious as ever ) denied them the necessary refuelling landing rights in the reconquered territories .

Kimbo

Reminds me of Isaac Asimov trying unsuccessfully to show the inconsistency to an older Jewish woman who told him “I can never trust Gentiles after they let our people die in the Holocaust”, but who then also went on to say, “We should look after our own people, and not get involved in the problems of others”.

Stars And Stripes

Just to throw in my two cents worth I am not a great fanboy of either side in this dispute as their are shitbags on both sides.
Some of the settler and ultra orthodox Jews(alot of them from the USA) are thoroughly horrible people who are obnoxious to be around but the ordinary Israeli is very hospitable and welcoming.
Same goes for the Palestinians with Islamist followers and the ordinary guy on the street.
However what I do know is that Israeli society is far more developed socially and politically than the Palestinian one and to advocate independence for the Palestinians as the answer to the problem is just naivety at it’s worst.

ross411

This is hardly unique to the Jews.

What about the Maori and the treaty of Waitangi? Don’t you see some similarity there, with how the treaty is bandied about these days?

They’re both obvious candidates for those that are recreationally outraged to signal virtue. Of course I am obliged to state that this does not mean that there is no valid reason to be outraged about these things, because some people will choose to see what they want in what I am not saying, rather than the specific thing I am actually saying

Kimbo

Um, but this website, in line with its very liberal editorial policy – and good on it for that – allows the likes of EAD and Reid to post that sort of stuff with impunity.

Also it was one-time Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Abba Eban who coined the term, “there’s no business like Shoah (Hebrew: Holocaust) business” to explain how modern Zionist state makes hay out of the memory of the Final Solution for its purposes. The contemporary left-wing Jewish anti-Zionist activist Norman Finkelstein makes the same point

labrator

ross411

Yes, like that ever happens. You can ask marquess and Tom Barker for links until the end of days, but it’d get in the way of them blurting out accusations they see as the truth and expect you to take as gospel evidence sight unseen.

But you know, them thinking the comments exist is exactly the same as the comments actually existing. Don’t ya know?